|
|
|
August 30, 2008
Devil or Angel?
"A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for gay marriage."So claims this website, citing this news report that as Alaska governor, she vetoed a bill "sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples." Thus, argues the site, "Sarah Palin's veto gave gays the same rights as married couples in Alaska," and "a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for gay marriage." What I can't figure out is whether the web site ("Sarah Palin Supports Gay Rights") is for her or against her. Not that something like that would matter.... MORE: A number of people are claiming that Sarah Palin is anti gay, and they cite this Boston Globe piece as authority. And it appears that the Globe has her on record as being against state health benefits for same-sex partners: In October of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News described Palin's positions on social issues in a lengthy profile:The problem is, the "lengthy profile" which is linked by the Boston Globe and others says nothing about same-sex marriage. (In fact, I can't find any of the language cited; I may be blind, but I read it three times.) Howard Friedman, though, says he found the story via Lexis, but he links a .pdf file (which looks like it came from a word processor) and it is completely different from the article at the Anchorage Daily News web site."A significant part of Palin's base of support lies among social and Christian conservatives. Her positions on social issues emerged slowly during the campaign: on abortion (should be banned for anything other than saving the life of the mother), stem cell research (opposed), physician-assisted suicide (opposed), creationism (should be discussed in schools), state health benefits for same-sex partners (opposed, and supports a constitutional amendment to bar them)." Once again, I'm wondering whether there are two completely different worlds -- Google and Lexis. If (like me) you believe in "trust but verify," how do you know what story actually appeared in the newspaper? How is anyone supposed to verify anything? I can only conclude that the following statement is probably true: "She is against gay marriage although she did support equal access to benefits for same sex couples in Alaska."Her reasons for supporting access to benefits may have been out of respect for the state constitution as opposed to her personal views -- so there may be two ways to read the word "support." Perhaps she's one of those rare birds who does not allow her religious views to interfere with her legal duties. While I don't know enough about what she thinks (or why she thinks it) to render judgment, many voters would find such an approach refreshing in politics. MORE: I keep reading the linked piece (which has two parts) looking for the language cited, and it just isn't there. Why would the Boston Globe and so many blogs be citing it? I find it hard to believe that none of them read it. Can it be that it was altered, and that the original only appears in Lexis? I hate to sound like a nitpicker or a whiner, but seriously, how can I discuss a story if I don't know what the story is? MORE: Are Obama's people trying to pass themselves off as anti-gay bigots? Commenter Mark astutely points out that the site I linked -- "Sarah Palin Supports Gay Rights" -- was checked out by LGF, and it appears that the IP numbers are the same as those of obamadefense.com -- which in turn redirects to the Obama campaign's FightTheSmears.com. I smelled something funny, but it didn't occur to me that it was the Obama campaign, or that they'd be so blatant about it. This isn't even disguised. (And what's with the purloined McCain logo at the top of the website?) Puh-leeze! MORE: Obamadefense.com no longer redirects to the Obama campaign's FightTheSmears.com. Hmmm..... Whatever is going on, it has the smell of skullduggery. FWIW, sarahpalingayrights.com is registered at the GoDaddy.com proxy site. Which means it could be anyone. posted by Eric on 08.30.08 at 09:28 AM
Comments
I read that it was her first veto as governor. She checked the AG for constutionality and decided it was constitutional. So she said it would be better to have the constitution amended but as it was, it is was correct for couples regardless of sex to get state benefits. RAH tempest07@verizon.net · August 30, 2008 08:12 PM Did you see where this anti-Palin / anti-gay site seems to be run by the same people as the Obama defense site? http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31096_Obama_Campaign_Behind_Anti-Palin_Smear_Site Mark · August 30, 2008 09:25 PM Um, she didn't say Creationism should be taught in schools. She said it should be discussed. M. Simon · September 3, 2008 03:50 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2008
August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Joe
• Fred • And where were you in 1986? • Putting the Constitution ahead of Culture War • Chicken Thief • Sarah Palin Debates Health Care • MoveOn.Org Has Taken Over Democrats • A good question from a leading Democrat • Buchanan smears Palin? • Berkeley nostalgia
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I'm of the persuasion that government should be out of the 'providing health care' program to straight, gay, single, married or otherwise; government health care is an oxymoron and it is ridiculous defend.
It's more a matter of me being anti-serfdom rather than anything to do with sex.
The absurdity of it all is that even though I hate Serfdom, gay activist will decry me as a homophobe.